Many in Congress, the Bush Administration, and the non-governmental organization (NGO)
community believe that the 110th Congress set the stage for action on foreign aid reform by the
111th Congress and the new Administration in 2009.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the role of foreign assistance as a tool of U.S.
foreign policy has come into sharper focus. President George W. Bush elevated global
development as a third pillar of national security, with defense and diplomacy, as articulated in
the U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002, and reiterated in 2006.
In January 2006, Secretary of State Rice announced the ?transformational development? initiative
to bring coordination and coherence to U.S. aid programs. She created a new Bureau of Foreign
Assistance (F Bureau), led by the Director of Foreign Assistance (DFA), who also serves as
Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. F Bureau developed a Strategic
Framework for Foreign Assistance (Framework, or F process) to align aid programs with strategic
objectives. The Framework became a guiding force in the FY2008 and FY2009 budgets.
In recent years, numerous studies have addressed various concerns and provided
recommendations regarding U.S. foreign aid policy, funding, and structure. Views range from
general approval of the F process as a first step toward better coordination of aid programs and
the need to build on it, to strong criticism of the creation of the F Bureau, its inadequacy in
coordinating or reforming much of what is wrong with foreign aid, and the need to replace it with
a cabinet-level department of foreign aid.
While the 14 studies surveyed by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) emphasize different
aspects of the importance of U.S. foreign assistance, all agree that foreign assistance must be
reformed to improve its effectiveness. Of the 16 recommendation categories CRS identifies, only
enhancing civilian agency resources has the support of all of the studies covered in this report.
The next two most-often cited recommendations are raising development to equal status with
diplomacy and defense, and increasing needs-based foreign aid, while encouraging recipientgovernment
ownership of aid effectiveness. Half of the studies urge a greater congressional role
in foreign aid budgeting and policy formulation.
Because these studies were written for the purpose of reforming U.S. foreign aid, it is not
surprising that none of them recommends maintaining the status quo. Given the current economic
crisis and budget constraints along with other major concerns, such as health care, energy policy,
and global warming, however, some Members in the 111th Congress may prefer a continuation of
the existing foreign aid structure. This report is a review of selected studies written between 2001
and 2008 and will not be updated. For related information on foreign aid and foreign affairs
budgets, see CRS Report RL34552, State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2009
Appropriations, by Susan B. Epstein and Kennon H. Nakamura.